On 7/29/2021 3:46 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:A very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:01:49 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:I am a mathematician and old enough that I took a few courses from
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting >>>>>> the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of >>>>>> insight.
Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
erroneous.
the key essence of support for the first sentence.
This is a troll.
/Flibble
This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can >>>> be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.
This is a troll.
Tarski before I decided I liked Banach Spaces better. I have been
watching this years-long argument and admiring it as a horrible
example. PO is sui generis it's you other guys I am amazed at. Why
do you tolerate him?
I gag completely at PO's attempt to make Turing machines a C
language subject. At the very least you should make him define
the mapping behind his "equivalence".
But there are other sloppy points you have let him have his own
way with. For example; suppose T is a Turing Machine what does
H(T) mean technically if H is a Turing Machine alleged to be a halt
decider? I am willing to accept a quintuple (or whatever) as a
definition of a Turing Machine.
From where I sit a Turing Machine is a quadruple of a Turing Data Space, >> a Turing Code Space, a Focus and a Halt Set where: A Turing Data Space
is a triple of two stacks called Left and Right and a singleton called
Center. The set of things in Left, Center and Right is the Alphabet.
There
is a set called State Names. The value of Focus is a Sate Name. The Halt
Set is a set of state names. A Turing Code Space is a function from State
Names to functions from the Alphabet to Commands. A Command is a
triple of a Character from the Alphabet, a Boolean called Left-or-Right
and a State Name. The Focus is the name of the starting state. If any of
the Halting Set becomes the Focus execution of the machine stops.
That's a bit complicated. I hope I got it right.
I could go on but nobody wants me to.
I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey simplification:
Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
(or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
Consider the routine P defined as follows
rec routine P
§L:if T[P] go to L
Return §
If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
that the function T cannot exist.
Strachey, C 1965. An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
// Strachey CPL translated to C
void P()
{
if (H((u32)P))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:01:49 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:I am a mathematician and old enough that I took a few courses from
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting
the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of >>>>> insight.
Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
erroneous.
the key essence of support for the first sentence.
This is a troll.
/Flibble
This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can
be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.
This is a troll.
Tarski before I decided I liked Banach Spaces better. I have been
watching this years-long argument and admiring it as a horrible
example. PO is sui generis it's you other guys I am amazed at. Why
do you tolerate him?
I gag completely at PO's attempt to make Turing machines a C
language subject. At the very least you should make him define
the mapping behind his "equivalence".
But there are other sloppy points you have let him have his own
way with. For example; suppose T is a Turing Machine what does
H(T) mean technically if H is a Turing Machine alleged to be a halt
decider? I am willing to accept a quintuple (or whatever) as a
definition of a Turing Machine.
From where I sit a Turing Machine is a quadruple of a Turing Data Space,
a Turing Code Space, a Focus and a Halt Set where: A Turing Data Space
is a triple of two stacks called Left and Right and a singleton called Center. The set of things in Left, Center and Right is the Alphabet. There
is a set called State Names. The value of Focus is a Sate Name. The Halt
Set is a set of state names. A Turing Code Space is a function from State Names to functions from the Alphabet to Commands. A Command is a
triple of a Character from the Alphabet, a Boolean called Left-or-Right
and a State Name. The Focus is the name of the starting state. If any of
the Halting Set becomes the Focus execution of the machine stops.
That's a bit complicated. I hope I got it right.
I could go on but nobody wants me to.
On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:
I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was
an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
simplification:
Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.
André
Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
(or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
Consider the routine P defined as follows
rec routine P
§L:if T[P] go to L
Return §
If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
that the function T cannot exist.
Strachey, C 1965. An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume
7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
// Strachey CPL translated to C
void P()
{
if (H((u32)P))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 427 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 34:14:30 |
| Calls: | 9,029 |
| Calls today: | 12 |
| Files: | 13,384 |
| Messages: | 6,008,751 |